ThumbsUp wrote: I really think the inconsistencies in the book were unintentional

So you don't take the author's word for what is and isn't intentional in his own work? The inconsistencies - or at least the major ones are intentional. However that doesn't in any way have to mean that we are dealing with an alternate universe. The person or people that have tampered with the dossier could simply have done so with a specific agenda in mind (f.ex. protecting Annie).

A lot of the inconsistencies may be unintentional or knowingly intentional just be cause he felt like changing them. Frost has said as much. But in addition, some of the glaring ones (Norma's mom) he has said "wait and see".

ThumbsUp wrote: I really think the inconsistencies in the book were unintentional

So you don't take the author's word for what is and isn't intentional in his own work? The inconsistencies - or at least the major ones are intentional. However that doesn't in any way have to mean that we are dealing with an alternate universe. The person or people that have tampered with the dossier could simply have done so with a specific agenda in mind (f.ex. protecting Annie).

Sure, there's likely an explanation behind the Annie thing. But the many other inconsistencies in the book left me sceptical toward the changes as a whole, and what I should or shouldn't believe. (I do think many of the inconsistencies were goofs, especially dates and smaller details.) It'll be interesting to see how the show does, or doesn't, reconcile these changes.

ThumbsUp wrote: I really think the inconsistencies in the book were unintentional

So you don't take the author's word for what is and isn't intentional in his own work? The inconsistencies - or at least the major ones are intentional. However that doesn't in any way have to mean that we are dealing with an alternate universe. The person or people that have tampered with the dossier could simply have done so with a specific agenda in mind (f.ex. protecting Annie).

While I'm sure some things have been tampered with, the random nature of many major changes and the fact that Tamara verifies them through outside sources makes be believe that many of them cannot be attributed to good ol' tampering.For example, the conclusion of Ben Horne's Civil War fantasy. There's no way that change isn't intentional on Frost's side, and Tamara explicitly confirms that her sources say that he surrendered at Appomattox.I already have trouble believing that protecting Annie would involve changing the name and living status of Norma's mother instead of simply erasing Annie herself from all official records, but I could maybe accept that. But who cares about Ben Horne's Civil War fantasy?? (or any detail pertaining to Josie's life and untimely demise, or the year and weapon of the Pittsburgh incident, or Nadine and Ed's marriage, or any of the other major changes from major show canon)

ThumbsUp wrote: I really think the inconsistencies in the book were unintentional

So you don't take the author's word for what is and isn't intentional in his own work? The inconsistencies - or at least the major ones are intentional. However that doesn't in any way have to mean that we are dealing with an alternate universe. The person or people that have tampered with the dossier could simply have done so with a specific agenda in mind (f.ex. protecting Annie).

While I'm sure some things have been tampered with, the random nature of many major changes and the fact that Tamara verifies them through outside sources makes be believe that many of them cannot be attributed to good ol' tampering.For example, the conclusion of Ben Horne's Civil War fantasy. There's no way that change isn't intentional on Frost's side, and Tamara explicitly confirms that her sources say that he surrendered at Appomattox.I already have trouble believing that protecting Annie would involve changing the name and living status of Norma's mother instead of simply erasing Annie herself from all official records, but I could maybe accept that. But who cares about Ben Horne's Civil War fantasy?? (or any detail pertaining to Josie's life and untimely demise, or the year and weapon of the Pittsburgh incident, or Nadine and Ed's marriage, or any of the other major changes from major show canon)

Not to mention the (wildly inconsistent) life and times of Robert Jacoby. If even half the errors in RJ's timeline alone were intentional, one of Frost's narrative purposes must have been to portray Preston as a COMPLETE dunce.

ThumbsUp wrote: I really think the inconsistencies in the book were unintentional

So you don't take the author's word for what is and isn't intentional in his own work? The inconsistencies - or at least the major ones are intentional. However that doesn't in any way have to mean that we are dealing with an alternate universe. The person or people that have tampered with the dossier could simply have done so with a specific agenda in mind (f.ex. protecting Annie).

While I'm sure some things have been tampered with, the random nature of many major changes and the fact that Tamara verifies them through outside sources makes be believe that many of them cannot be attributed to good ol' tampering.For example, the conclusion of Ben Horne's Civil War fantasy. There's no way that change isn't intentional on Frost's side, and Tamara explicitly confirms that her sources say that he surrendered at Appomattox.I already have trouble believing that protecting Annie would involve changing the name and living status of Norma's mother instead of simply erasing Annie herself from all official records, but I could maybe accept that. But who cares about Ben Horne's Civil War fantasy?? (or any detail pertaining to Josie's life and untimely demise, or the year and weapon of the Pittsburgh incident, or Nadine and Ed's marriage, or any of the other major changes from major show canon)

Exactly. We'll see if the stuff with Norma's mom has a reason. But so much of the other stuff is likely unintentionally different of changed just because. Just my opinion of course, and will perhaps be proven wrong. But even if there IS a reason for all of it, then it sure seems needlessly confounding.

Ross wrote:A lot of the inconsistencies may be unintentional or knowingly intentional just be cause he felt like changing them. Frost has said as much. But in addition, some of the glaring ones (Norma's mom) he has said "wait and see".

Of course, Twin Peaks is a parody of big budget soap operas as well. Don't forget Dallas overwrote an entire season as a dream a few years before Twin Peaks ran. Just as a novel can have an unreliable narrator, perhaps what we saw in season two of Twin Peaks wasn't necessarily accurate. Such an approach can allow for the inconsistencies between the books, the TV shows and the movie.

I am not sure if this has been suggested here before but in the book you might remeber that Preston found a list of FBI members in Philadelphia without knowing what it was about. If i remeber correctly: Cole, Cooper, Jeffries, Albert, Chester Desmond, Sam Stanley, Windom Earle

I am convinced now that it is a list of all people who worked on a Blue Rose case, but Tp is not experienced enough with Cole to know about it.

CuriousWoman wrote:I am not sure if this has been suggested here before but in the book you might remeber that Preston found a list of FBI members in Philadelphia without knowing what it was about. If i remeber correctly: Cole, Cooper, Jeffries, Albert, Chester Desmond, Sam Stanley, Windom Earle

I am convinced now that it is a list of all people who worked on a Blue Rose case, but Tp is not experienced enough with Cole to know about it.

that could be it, but in the FWWM version Sam Stanley was not clued in to the Blue Rose.

i really, really like this book. unlike the earlier tie-in books, The Secret Diary of Laura Palmer (which i enjoyed quite a bit) and The Autobiography of Dale Cooper (which i didn't grab me much) i think Mark Frost's contribution to the Twin Peaks books could stand on its own as an intriguing piece of litterature. it builds up a world with intriguing characters and lots of mysteries and thinning the line between fiction and reality, which from what i understand is something Frost started to experiment with in his book(s) on golf, is excellent. it is obviously super well researched and as such works both as a gripping piece of fiction about Twin Peaks and its history and for quite large parts as a piece of non-fiction on the history of the occult and unexplained phenomena in the United States. overall i think Frost here proves that he is a very good writer with a great way with the english language and an ability to accurately convey the voices of different characters, different formats and different time areas. whether a historical formal letter from the early 1800s, a secret meeting between the president and a shadowy character or an official government report Frost never fails to make his writing believable. the one exception i feel is perhaps that some of the characters doesn't seem entirely consistant with the TV show it builds on; e.g. as been noted countless times, Tammy Preston seems to be a different person than the one we see in the show, but perhaps more importantly i didn't feel the characterization of Hawk was entirely believable here. on the other hand people like Dr. Jacoby and the Log Lady were spot on.

then there's the discrepancies and certain things that have been considered errors on Frost's part. i read an interesting, and very positive, user review on either GoodReads or Amazon (unfortunately i couldn't find it right now) from a person who said he worked as some type of historical archivist. he commanded Frost for being able to replicate the feeling of reading real historical document, even right down to the fact that compring such documents almost always present these type of strange discrepancies that's prevalent in the book. i thought that was very interesting, that Frost might have stumbled across this phenomena while researching this and other books and decided to incorporate it. i wouldn't be suprised if there's one or two that holds a little more weight (How's Annie?) that will be revealed in time but i'm fine with this explanation.

as someone interested in conspiracy theories and the occult i loved how Frost tied all sorts of captivating cases like Kenneth Arnold in Tacoma, Roswell and Jack Parson / Thelema with the world of Twin Peaks. some dissapointed reviewers were quick to bash the book for incorporating UFOs and aliens in the TP narrative (like that wasn't a part of the original series) but if you read between the lines it's obvious what is being hinted at is something more along the lines of the spiritual mythology already in place than X-Files cases. it's very enlightening reading too as much of the book got me to read up more on many historical accounts that i wasn't previously aware of; the betrayal of General Wilkinson, the botched investigation into Lewis' death (murder?) and much more.

to me this is head and shoulders above earlier Twin Peaks book and a much, much better book than the only other Frost book i had previously read - the Palladin Prophecy book 1. i am eagerly awaiting The Final Dossier and i also ordered The List of 7 the other day so looking forward to reading that one as well.